In 1973 Dr. Morton Smith published a book entitled "How Is The Gold Become Dim" (Amazon, HERE) which laid out the essential theological indictment against the (then) Presbyterian Church in the United States, the denominatiton of which he was a member. It played a large role in unifying the various strands of conservative theological and religious members of that denomination into a separate group which ultimately departed and formed a new denominations which is (now) the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA - of which I am a pastor). The PCUS ultimately evolved into the present PCUSA, the largest Presbyterian denomination in the United States.

The major premise of Dr. Smith's book is that the "gold" of the grand old denomination, as with the splendor of the ancient temple in Jerusalem to which Jeremiah was referring in the Lamentations passage above, was now "dim." Jeremiah wasn't talking about that gold just losing it's luster and that all it needed was some brightening up and neither was Dr. Smith. In both instances the point is that the luster is missing... the brilliance is "dim" or absent, the Temple no longer glistens in harmonious beauty but rather is lying in ruins with nothing to commend itself to either God or man.

Plainly speaking, Dr. Smith indicted his denomination with not only losing doctrinal unity but losing the idea of doctrinal integrity itself. The collapse of witness (growing dim) was because the Church no longer seriously believed its Confessional Statements and in the resulting doctrinal chaos, had fallen into the trap of equating a generalized "spirituality" for "faith." "Faith" as such is always directional... Faith is always "Faith in" something else. Unless one can categorically define what one has "faith in" then it must be understood that "faith" is not present to begin with.

The Church of Jesus Christ has historically displayed its greatest zeal in the midst of doctrinal conflict. In periods where doctrinal conflict has been squashed, the larger picture is that zeal has diminished. If this observation is granted then the conclusion might be that "squashing" doctrinal conflict is not only counter-productive, it is actually inimical to the Church's mission. People don't get excited about fighting spiritual battles unless they have something to believe in... and that "something" has to be clearly understood, clearly articulated and clearly important.

It is the function of "doctrine" to establish this "something"... to define it so that it is clearly understood, to articulate it so that it is clearly distinguished from competing views, and to relate it to the individual and group consciousness such that is clearly recognized as important.

From the Garden of Eden through the completion of the Canon of Holy Scripture, commonly held "doctrine" has been the instrument through which God has built, equipped, motivated and empowered His people in the pursuit of His ends. When they have truly "believed" they have glistened with the reflected Glory of God Himself. It was to this that Balaam alluded when he saw the hordes of Israel approaching. The majesty of God was reflected in the column of smoke by day and the pillar of fire by night... but it was the uncommon zeal and unity of the people that brought them victory over all their enemies. The "Glory" of Israel, subsequently was the temple and the entire edifice of associated doctrine which defined God's covenant people and governed their conduct.

The New Testament emphasis progressively established and amplified this body of doctrine and thus Paul could tell his protege Timothy "take heed to yourself and to your doctrine" for the success of his ministry would flow from those two things.

However, from the dawn of time right on to the present, the "doctrine" of the Triune God and His plan for history, has been under attack. And the most deadly attacks have always come about when the idea of "doctrine" itself has been minimized. When both sides agree that doctrine is important, sparks fly, often over very small nuances of meaning. Far from being viewed as a "negative" thing, the proper framework for understanding this conflict is that it is what "must" happen if the Gospel is to advance. It is when one side argues that peace is more important than doctrine... that unity is found in having the same "heart" rather than having the same "mind" as well as the same "heart", that zeal is on the way out the window and the gold becomes dim.

Morton Smith's indictment of the old PCUS was fundamentally that it no longer cared about what it "confessed." In seeking to be more "inclusive" it was willing to sacrifice zeal for doctrine and, sadly, to equate zeal for doctrine with "divisiveness."

In our culture I find this same circumstance dominating. Across the board people seem to no longer "believe" in anything... if by "belief" one means holding to some principle with such zeal and vigor that conflict cannot be avoided. Even in modern Evangelical circles the tendency is toward dramatic reductionism in doctrine, a stripping down of principles, rather than a building up of them. This is, in essence, having the Temple of doctrine destroyed and having only a few fragments lying about remaining.

The inevitable result is tepid witness and spineless defense. The gates of Hades are not only standing strong, they have opened and the forces of darkness have poured out into the ranks of the assembled armies of God. This was what Paul foretold would happen when he instructed Timothy to hold fast.